[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140326131747.GD2869@minipsycho.orion>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:17:47 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, andy@...yhouse.net,
dborkman@...hat.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com, jesse@...ira.com,
pshelar@...ira.com, azhou@...ira.com,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, vyasevic <vyasevic@...hat.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 0/4] introduce infrastructure for support of
switch chip datapath
Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:00:53PM CET, jhs@...atatu.com wrote:
>On 03/26/14 03:21, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>
>>
>>Creating bonding of the switch ports does not fit into the picture at
>>all. These port netdevices are just a representation of a port. Not
>>actual netdevice where the data goes through.
>>
>>Please consider the case I gave already to this thread:
>>
>> switch chip
>> ------------------------
>> | | | | | | | CPU
>> p1 p2 ...pn px py MNGMNT -----------
>> | | | pcie
>> | | | ---------------
>> | | | | NIC0 NIC1
>> | | ---pcie----- | |
>> | ------someMII------- |
>> ---------someMII-----------
>>
>> NIC0 and NIC1 are ordinary NICs like 8139too for example with no
>> notion they are connected to a switch. They as completely
>> independent on the mngmnt iface.
>>
>> There, actual data is coming through NIC0 and NIC1 which is
>> completely separated
>> from the p1...pn,px.px port representations.
>>
>> And if you understand it this way, it makes perfect sense to have a
>> master device
>> for these port representations.
>>
>
>I think you may be looking at some specific board design which has those
>two NICs; there are typically many variations of such boards and they
>have to be each dealt with slightly differently by whoever is
>porting. Important detail is:
It is just an example, nothing more.
>we already know how to deal with NICs - remove them from the diagram
>and then the discussion is about the switch chip. I am assuming
>the MNGMT interface is where the control is going to be. i.e
* I just tried to emphasize where the actual network traffic in between
switch chip and CPU flows. That is important to realize I believe.
>I can send table updates there, control the different port
>charasterstics etc.
>So Neil's option #1 is to have a driver controlling that interface
>(->priv).
>There's probably some DMA engine's for the datapath for one or more
>of the ports this driver exposes...
See *.
>Replace PCIE with DSA, a simulation chip, whatever the gazillion
>crazy interfaces the openwrt guys have to deal with and we have
>ourselves a consistent interface.
>
>
>>Btw note this model fits into existing DSA as well I believe. The actual DSA
>>devices whould act as NIC0, NIC1 and what would be added is the switch
>>representation (couple of more netdevices to represent actual HW ports and
>>their master)
>>
>
>Refer to my comments above.
>
>
>cheers,
>jamal
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists